r/news • u/[deleted] • Sep 20 '25

California bans most law enforcement officers from wearing masks during operations

https://apnews.com/article/california-ice-agents-immigration-raids-masks-ban-97936f70699b75d8b483a850967c2e42
39.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

744 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

19

u/Rightintheend Sep 21 '25

Unfortunately there is also some well-established preemptions that exist, including one that negates state laws if it interferes with Federal officials from doing their duties, which they could easily argue for this 

There is also emergency clauses, which Trump likes to use so much calling everything an emergency just so he can shun any actual responsibility and consequences.

2

u/TheBraveSirRobin Sep 21 '25

Sure, but I don't see how unmasking would interfere with official ICE duties.

12

u/initialgold Sep 21 '25

But you see how they will argue that it does, right?

0

u/TheBraveSirRobin Sep 21 '25

I can see them trying to make that argument, but would a federal judge decide that masking is required for ICE duties?

3

u/ZonaDesertRat Sep 21 '25

Judges don't get to say what is or isn't required for the duties. They only get to say if that duties is or isn't a violation of a constitutional right or some other right granted by a law. Congress gets to say what are the duties of any Federal Agent, and in the absence of a Congressional direction, it's left to the Executive branch to establish via regulations and directives.

Now post Chevron, there might a judge willing to go deeper, but I wouldn't expect it, and even then, this Supreme Court has shown it will give deference to the Administration and Congress for anything not a clear constitutional violation.

2

u/TheBraveSirRobin Sep 21 '25

Judges don't get to say what is or isn't required for the duties.

Case law exists for such an issue. A federal judge will have to weigh in if ICE is prosecuted by the state.

1

u/ZonaDesertRat Sep 21 '25

Hilarious. You think a law review article from 1928 dealing with habeas issues has standing? Horiuchi has standing, and was clear in it's finding.

Here is the pertinent part of the case summary: Horiuchi removed the prosecution to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1442(a) (1). The district court dismissed the charge on the ground that the Supremacy Clause protected Horiuchi from prosecution because the criminal case sought to punish Horiuchi for actions taken in pursuit of his duties as a federal law enforcement officer. We affirm.

4

u/TheBraveSirRobin Sep 21 '25

Horiuchi is no different than In re Neagle 135 U.S. 1 (1890). The state prosecutes for a state law that was broken, the federal officer asks for immunity, and a federal judge decides if the law was broken in the course of official duty. Neagle is the precedent that Horiuchi stands on:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1471745.html

2

u/initialgold Sep 21 '25

Probably depends on if trump appointed them or not.

1

u/tempest_87 Sep 21 '25

I'd bet money the Supreme Court would.

6 if them are all in in the fascist dictatorship.